By Jerome Cleary
Last Monday night, the City of West Hollywood voted to remove residents’ comments and input. Imagine a sleek and modern city council chamber where decisions about the future are made. But the seats reserved for those who will live with those decisions remain empty, their voices deliberately excluded from the conversation. This isn’t a scene from a dystopian novel; it’s the grim reality when a city chooses to silence its residents on development projects. And make no mistake, this act of muting the community is arguably the most damaging thing a city can inflict upon its inhabitants.
A city isn’t just bricks and mortar; it’s a living, breathing organism composed of the diverse experiences, perspectives, and aspirations of its people. When a city council or planning department decides that resident input is an inconvenient obstacle to progress, they are essentially severing a vital connection to the very heart of their community. This silencing act breeds resentment, erodes trust, and ultimately leads to developments that may look good on paper but fail to serve the true needs and desires of those who call the city home.
Consider the practical implications. Residents possess invaluable local knowledge. They understand the nuances of their neighborhoods – the traffic flow at rush hour, the strain on local infrastructure, the cherished green spaces that define their quality of life. To disregard their insights is to invite costly mistakes and unintended consequences. A development pushed through without community consultation might exacerbate existing problems, create new ones, and ultimately diminish the very livability the city aims to enhance.
Beyond the practical, there’s a profound ethical dimension. Residents are stakeholders in their city’s future. They pay taxes, contribute to the local economy, and invest their lives in their communities. To deny them a meaningful voice in shaping that future is a blatant disregard for their rights and a profound act of disrespect. It fosters a sense of powerlessness and alienation, turning engaged citizens into disillusioned bystanders. Why care about your community when your opinions are deemed irrelevant?
Furthermore, silencing residents stifles innovation and creativity. Community engagement can spark unexpected solutions and identify opportunities that top-down planning might overlook. When diverse voices are heard, development projects are more likely to be well-rounded, sustainable, and truly beneficial to the entire community. By creating an echo chamber where only the voices of developers and officials are amplified, a city risks stagnation and the perpetuation of narrow perspectives.
The long-term consequences of such silencing are deeply damaging to the social fabric of a city. Trust between residents and their local government erodes, replaced by suspicion and animosity. This can lead to increased civic apathy, decreased participation in other community initiatives, and a general sense of disenfranchisement. A city that actively excludes its residents is essentially tearing itself apart from the inside out.
Instead of viewing resident voices as an impediment, forward-thinking cities recognize them as an invaluable asset. They understand that genuine community engagement – through transparent consultations, accessible forums, and meaningful dialogue – leads to better, more sustainable, and more widely supported development outcomes. It fosters a sense of ownership, strengthens community bonds, and ultimately creates a more vibrant and resilient city for everyone.
A city that chooses to silence the voices of its residents on development projects commits a grave error. It sacrifices local knowledge, disregards ethical obligations, stifles innovation, and ultimately undermines the very foundation of a thriving community. True progress isn’t about imposing a vision from above; it’s about building a shared future, brick by brick, with the active and respected participation of every resident. To silence them is not just bad policy; it’s a betrayal of the very essence of what a city should be.
Poor NIMBYs can’t stop housing like they used to…thoughts and prayers
Another dark secret of this deeply flawed plan is eliminating the Planning Commission’s participation. They are the ONLY commission in city government that is responsible for evaluating the impact of projects on traffic congestion and pollution. By all means, let’s get rid of any protections to the health and welfare of residents, visitors and businesses while giving away the farm to developers.
“Taxation without representation…”
Perfectly written Mr Cleary
Righteous indignation @ its finest, our own version of TRUMPian city good now sits within the majority of council tucked within the dark folds of curtains in a Macbeth play. Utterly laughable having to listen to the goon squad espouse their ideological conditioning for this small once-great city. Fast-tracking & expediting the permit process, GREAT IDEA, degut the incredibly valuable community input, STUPIDITY- It’s the very essence of why great cities thrive, the guardrails of ‘checks & balances’ are now all but extinct. Meister attempted to demonstrate this succinctly, soundly, & intelligently on behalf of the Wetherly project & its… Read more »
It is yet another “profound act of disrespect” that drives John Erickson’s authoritarian (trumpian) view of his role in relation to residents of this city. I expected his lap dog (Hang) to vote with him, and it is clear that Byers’s agenda is anti-resident in the extreme; she has global issues to tackle and pesky nuts and bolts of sound municipal governance get in her way. Heilman’s quaint words in opposition conceptually, followed by his yes vote anyway, was the most pathetic offense yet in his increasingly disillustrious political career of taking two knees in front of every developer in… Read more »
DO we need ANY more evidence that Erickson needs to be recalled and ousted from both the city council and from the city? Get his ass OUT.
I would agree with this if these community meetings actually had any of the effects you mentioned. The well documented reality of the situation is that these meetings were implemented as a way of excluding black, brown, and poor people under the guise of “protecting the character of the community.” The sad truth is that most of these meetings are dominated by homeowners who seek to protect the value of their own assets by preventing housing for others.
If John Erickson gets his way, and there is no longer any input from taxpaying residents at Council meetings, he gets to go home in 5 or 10 minutes, rather than sometimes having to listen to pesky residents droning on about quality of life issues, regularly til 1 a.m. Why bother to air condition and light a big newly built expensive auditorium, when now they can just have Council meetings in a conference room that seats just 5 people. If John Erickson thinks he knows everything and doesn’t need any input from anyone, why bother having any space or chairs… Read more »
I attended this meeting to discuss Erickson’s initiative to eliminate public input and bypass the Planning Commission for almost all housing projects proposed in West Hollywood. This initiative would give developers and heir paid lobbyists the keys to the city and free rein to maximize profits with zero assurance that the new buildings would be affordable. In spite of public comments and dozens of emails outraged by the idea, the initiative passed 4-1. Lauren Meister was the only voice of reason in a council led by officials whose campaigns were funded by developers, who are now getting their payback, leaving… Read more »
2020 was more than the start of a Pandemic. It’s the year Democracy broke in West Hollywood. Five years later, it’s still broken.